Developing and Applying a New Instrument for Microanalysis of the Coaching Process: The Coaching Process Q‐Set

• Published date: 01 December 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21215
• Date: 01 December 2015

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 26, no. 4, Winter 2015 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21215 431

Developing and Applying a New

Instrument for Microanalysis

of the Coaching Process:

TheCoaching Process Q-Set

Tatiana Bachkirova, Jonathan Sibley, Adrian Christopher Myers

This paper presents the results of a project aimed at the development and

the use of an instrument designed to identify differences and similarities

across coaching approaches at the level of a specifi c coaching session. 41

professional coaches described one of their typical coaching sessions using

this instrument and found it comprehensive. Q-mode Factor analysis

suggests that there was one overarching shared viewpoint about the way a

mid-engagement coaching session is typically facilitated. This suggests that

there may be considerable similarities in how coaching is actually practiced

in spite of the existence of a variety of coaching traditions, genres and

contexts in which coaching takes place, leading to one extended conceptual

defi nition of coaching. We suggest that the tool makes possible a number

of research projects, allows a clearer understanding of services typically

provided by contracted coaches and assists in self-evaluation of professional

and ‘on-the-job’ types of coaching.

Key words: coaching process, microanalysis, Q methodology, typical

coaching session, identity of coaching

Although we are witnessing a vast growth of coaching as a fi eld of practice and

as a professional discipline, many commentators (Bachkirova & Cox, 2004;

Baron & Morin, 2012; Berglas, 2002; Bono, Purvanova, Towler, & Peterson,

2009; Fillery-Travis & Lane, 2006; Grant, Passmore, Cavanagh, & Parker,

2010; Sherman & Freas, 2004) express concern about the lack of research

This research was partially supported by a grant from the Institute of Coaching, Harvard Medical

School.

432 Bachkirova, Sibley, Myers

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

and defi ned theory on which coaches base their practice. It appears that the

very central question of what coaching actually is remains an area of continu-

ing debate (Bachkirova & Kauffman, 2009; Baron & Morin, 2012; Grant etal.,

2010; Hamlin, Ellinger, & Beattie, 2009; Peterson & Little, 2005). Some HRD

professionals, for example, argue that there is no distinction between the main

aims of organization deveopment (OD) and HRM professionals and coaches

(Hamlin etal., 2009), whereas others see coaching as only a small element

of planned training on the job (De Jong, Thijssen, & Versloot, 2001). Some

authors see coaching as an important part of the strategic function of HRD

(Ulrich, 2007); others have explored to what degree and in what ways coach-

ing impacts those who have been coached after receiving facilitated feedback

in comparison to those who received only facilitated multisource feedback

(Nieminen, Smerek, Kotrba, & Denison, 2013).

It could be argued that mixed views on coaching as “HRD- related prac-

tice” (Egan, 2013, p. 177) are consequences of trying to defi ne coaching

only on the basis of the content of coaching conversations together with

its typical stated aim. What seems to be missing in the discussions of the

identity of coaching is consideration of coaching as a process: what is actu-

ally happening in the session, what coach and client do in the process of

coaching interaction (Bachkirova & Kauffman, 2009), as well as how coaches

conceive of and describe their own coaching processes. It is not clear what

the “active ingredients” (Bono etal., 2009, p. 393) of the coaching process

are. For example, what are the common elements among and differences

between existing types (e.g., solution-focused or Gestalt) and genres of

coaching process (e.g., executive or performance coaching)? What are the

similarities among and differences between what coaches and clients do in

comparison to other types of practices and interventions (e.g., consultancy

or counseling)? In particular, there is a lack of robust empirical studies focus-

ing on the process of coaching. Although the number of studies has recently

increased, progress has been impeded by the lack of instruments that can

explore perceptions of coaching sessions (e.g., allow coaches to describe their

own sessions) and that can identify and describe the signifi cance of various

elements of the coaching process in actual coaching sessions. The intention

of this research project was to produce an instrument that could explore

perceptions and begin to identify actual differences across coaching sessions.

As researchers, we believed that such an instrument could be developed by

involving experienced coaching researchers and practitioners. While the tool

is intended to have the potential to explore the coaching process of a wide

range of providers in various settings, this article is focused on contracted

one-to-one coaching services (external or internal) that are currently more

widespread in organizational settings (Chartered Institute of Personnel and

Development [CIPD], 2011).

It is widely acknowledged that in one-to-one coaching there are many

competing traditions and genres and much diversity in the contexts in

Microanalysis of the coaching session: The Coaching Process Q-set 433

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

which coaching takes place (e.g., coaching in organizations or life coaching).

Therefore, another ongoing debate in the coaching literature is about the need

for the buyers of coaching to be able to differentiate between various types

and traditions of coaching as well as to be able to make informed decisions

based on the backgrounds and training of coaches. For example, it is still not

clear what a cognitive-behaviorally trained coach can offer that is different

from a humanistic-oriented coach and whether this matters in terms of out-

comes. Bono and colleagues’ (2009) survey of executive coaches shows that

there seem to be only insignifi cant differences between the practices of psy-

chologists and nonpsychologists. However, they identifi ed more differences

between psychologists practicing in different traditions. As would be expected

in surveys of this kind, all subgroups reported listening as their main process

skill, which says very little about the nuances of the way the coaching pro-

cess unfolds or how and what they actually listen to. In contrast, this article

discusses the development and the use of an instrument that could allow for

a rich and detailed description of the coaching process (what coaches say

and what actually occurs) at a relatively granular level of interaction and col-

laboration between the coach and the client. We aim to describe the design of

an instrument that could be used for exploratory purposes in relation to the

coaching process, and include a discussion on one potential use of it as both

parts of the article provide an important background to each other.

Review of the Literature

According to many authors (Bachkirova & Kauffman, 2009; Cox etal., 2014b;

Feldman & Lankau, 2005; Ferrar, 2004; Hamlin etal., 2009; Kilburg, 1996;

Sherman & Freas, 2004) the defi nition and identity of coaching is an unre-

solved issue. This can puzzle novice practitioners and buyers of coaching

services. Some authors suggest that the confusion about what coaching is

negatively impacts its reputation “… there is a lack of clarity as to what profes-

sional coaching really is and what makes for an effective or reputable coach”

(Sherman & Freas, 2004, p. 84). Although an increasing number of different

defi nitions of coaching can be explained by the multidisciplinary background

of coaching practitioners, Bachkirova and Kauffman (2009, p. 95) argued that

the problem of differences in defi ning coaching is not just semantic but goes

much deeper—“in the diffi culty to establish a clear identity of coaching in

principle as a practice or process.” This is an important issue given that the

practice of coaching is increasing (Hamlin etal., 2009). In the absence of

a clearer understanding of the boundaries of coaching and related practices

and the recognition of coaching as an identifi able practice, it is unclear what

sponsors of coaching are actually purchasing or, for that matter, what HRD

practitioners and professional coaches need to do when practicing coaching.

Bachkirova and Kauffman (2009) applied the criteria of universality and

uniqueness to evaluate the attempts to defi ne coaching by each of the four